My outlook is still very positive, so no doom and gloom from me. It looks like the rpg alignment system is getting in the way of meaningful and fair pvp. PvP balancing should be based on reputation and local law, among other things. The world should be more than "might makes right" or Lord of the Flies reasoning.
Role-playing evil should be viable in the game world, but it should be similar to what "evil" is in the real world. In the real world, folks we call "evil" do not follow the law unless it serves their own purposes. Following the law, by itself, does not make someone "good".
For pvp balance, I do not care if someone is good or evil, only that laws exist to keep the playing field level.
More rambling, but with examples:
The bounty system is a great idea, but just because someone kills me and I place a bounty on their head, does not mean the act of satisfying the bounty is a "good" action. Anyone can place a bounty on someone else.
If my settlement has borders that are closed, then anyone entering is trespassing. I should be able to stop them and kill them if neccesary. Frontier law does not always look "good" but it should serve a purpose.
@Elorebaen
But do you not see that in going that route you set up the basic laws of the world to be oriented toward good. The Good and Neutrals whom you want to start creating a society and structure for the game in the beginning.
Evil however could possibly be severely limited due to the world being created primarily with good in mind.
Why should the Evil side have less of a chance to build an equally sound structure in their own way?
Why should we start with a disadvantage?
Evil finds a way (Yes, I am aware it sounds like a quote from Jurassic Park) :)Consider: Isn't the non-dogmatic usage of 'Good' inherently linked with civilization? Isn't the non-dogmatic usage of evil anti-civilization?
Do you want to pretend there are no advantages to voluntarily in coordination for the advancement of the common weal? What is chaotic except disruptive to organization and coordination? What is evil but contradictory to what is good for society?
How can anarchy function well? How can evil be as good as good is?
So of course good will be better than evil and law more coordinated than chaos.
How could it be otherwise?
Isn't your point more toward the imbalance of power between these factions?
The fact is we have only been hearing about the game from the point of view of the Good and the Lawful. The game design has to understand the capabilities and powers of one side before the other side can become balanced. Once the design has fully determined all the powers and advantages of good and law the design can turn to balancing what is less clear and less known.
Yes, it is more beneficial for a species to cooperate than it is to destroy. I would be in full agreement with you on that.
However, we are not trying to recreate our world. We are trying to recreate a world with 9 universally accepted alignments in its existence.
In the world of Pathfinder, all are equally valid.
Hence, so should their opportunities be, in that world.
And the calamities that would have/cause on other alignments.
But once again, if we follow that path, of Good being the first to be fleshed out, Evil would start with a serious disadvantage.
Good and Neutral could build their infrastructure without too much relative effort and only when they are fully formed, Evil could really begin to flourish.
Which seems rather unfair to me.
(Forgive me if my grammar is not in order, English is my second language)
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the whole evil settlements being weaker. I really see that as Chaotic Evil settlements that everyone hates and the only people that go their are mass murderers who no one likes being weaker. I didn't see anything about LE settlements.
Interestingly this touches on some arguments found in philosophy from such people as Thomas Hobbes and David Hume and others who wrote about the social contract individuals agree to when they continue to live within a social environment.
Part of what makes a Lawful stettlement work better/more efficiently is that the members of that society give up a significant portion of their volition, empowering the makers of laws to focus and coordinate the work being done. In a way the citizens of lawful settlements are in some ways weaker than the citizens of chaotic settlements.
Chaotic settlements are less efficient and productive exactly because their citizens do not give up their volition and are less bound by the rules implemented by the makers of law in their community.
So I should expect the settlements and benefits of Lawful societies to be more powerful and their citizens to be less powerful respectively than those of chaotic settlements.
How exactly that is to be expressed in the game certainly remains to be seen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a bit concerned about the new bounty mechanics. The "exclusive owner for a limited time" part pretty much says you can't hunt bounties with a group. So if the target is part of a roaming bunch, you have to take them all by yourself? I fail to see people joining me into my hunt when they can't have a share of the bounty and lose reputation for attacking unprovoked players.
And what's the point of putting a bounty on someone when the target can be assured that only one guy at a time is pursuing him? The whole point of bounties is to make sure that wherever the target goes, he needs to be on its guards.
The way it's currently described, the whole system pretty much protects bounties from hunters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW isn't sharing with us things they have not yet fully decided, although they are sharing some things they are considering.
We haven't heard what it is that chaotic and evil will have that balances the game. I think it is premature to judge overall factional imbalance.
If CE is able to more easily gain goblins as cannon fodder it would go a long way toward balancing any LG advantages that have been shared with us.
While it is good to give voice to concern, it is not yet time to form judgement.
I second this.
Thirded (? I guess it's a word now).
I am more interested in the ideas placed out by this current blog post. And that is all it really is for now. Ideas and not actual facts, hardwired into the game yet.
It's interesting to see the discussions, but for the Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Evil settlement balance doomsayers showing up now I have to say one thing. Take a moment to breath and realize that we're still 1.5-2 years out from final release of PFO. Things are gonna change.
Once actual details and set plans are revealed, and it's still not what you want, then feel free anxiously share your feelings with the development team.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a bit concerned about the new bounty mechanics. The "exclusive owner for a limited time" part pretty much says you can't hunt bounties with a group. So if the target is part of a roaming bunch, you have to take them all by yourself? I fail to see people joining me into my hunt when they can't have a share of the bounty and lose reputation for attacking unprovoked players.
And what's the point of putting a bounty on someone when the target can be assured that only one guy at a time is pursuing him? The whole point of bounties is to make sure that wherever the target goes, he needs to be on its guards.
The way it's currently described, the whole system pretty much protects bounties from hunters.
It sounds to me like you are using a very restricted interpretation to counter a very general proposition.
We already know that a bounty is restricted from the known cohorts of the criminal. We can infer, then, that the owner of the contract can share his property with his own cohorts.
Exclusivity is likely referring only to the condition that while the bounty hunter has exclusive rights to the bounty contract nobody else can submit a bid on it, and not meaning he cannot share the bounty with his guildmates.
Example: TN Ranger 'Gleneagle' takes a bounty contract on CE criminal 'Lololol'. Gleneagle uses the bounty hunter perks and his ranger skills to determine that Lololol is hiding deep in CE territory. So Gleneagle assembles his A team and makes an incursion to enter CE territory to neutralize Lololol and collect the bounty.
Just as the bounty extends to those helping or defending Lololol, so too are the benefits of the bounty extended to Gleneagle's A Team. I would presume that the entire team gets to split the bounty reward, which suggests that Glenagle may have a way to set the portions of the reward (including reputation) so the bounty system can apportion appropriate shares to his team upon completion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a bit concerned about the new bounty mechanics. The "exclusive owner for a limited time" part pretty much says you can't hunt bounties with a group. So if the target is part of a roaming bunch, you have to take them all by yourself? I fail to see people joining me into my hunt when they can't have a share of the bounty and lose reputation for attacking unprovoked players.
And what's the point of putting a bounty on someone when the target can be assured that only one guy at a time is pursuing him? The whole point of bounties is to make sure that wherever the target goes, he needs to be on its guards.
The way it's currently described, the whole system pretty much protects bounties from hunters.
It sounds to me like you are using a very restricted interpretation to counter a very general proposition.
We already know that a bounty is restricted from the known cohorts of the criminal. We can infer, then, that the owner of the contract can share his property with his own cohorts.
Exclusivity is likely referring only to the condition that while the bounty hunter has exclusive rights to the bounty contract nobody else can submit a bid on it, and not meaning he cannot share the bounty with his guildmates.
Example: TN Ranger 'Gleneagle' takes a bounty contract on CE criminal 'Lololol'. Gleneagle uses the bounty hunter perks and his ranger skills to determine that Lololol is hiding deep in CE territory. So Gleneagle assembles his A team and makes an incursion to enter CE territory to neutralize Lololol and collect the bounty.
Just as the bounty extends to those helping or defending Lololol, so too are the benefits of the bounty extended to Gleneagle's A Team. I would presume that the entire team gets to split the bounty reward, which suggests that Glenagle may have a way to set the portions of the reward (including reputation) so the bounty system can apportion appropriate shares to his team upon completion.
I was wondering this. Before this blog, I had interpreted for myself that Bounty-Contracts would be made with any number of bounty-hunters (perhaps an upper-limit) and the conditions of contract would be:
1. Upfront fee for taking on the job (low)
2. Main fee for successful completion of job (x1 recipient, perhaps the player that does most damage?) - who could then split the bounty with his/her team, at their discretion - all bounty-paid would be under the bounty-flag conditions ie immune. So the upfront fee could be negotiated to cover a full team ie reduced so everyone added/accepted gets the contract.
3. Bonus fee for certain conditions ie collateral damage to the target's interests; speed upon delivery etc. :)
=
Perhaps 2. is where the problem is: IE deciding who if any number are on the hunt has the biggest stake to claim the contract? maybe it is starting simple and then can be increased in complexity?
Secondly, the above is one team. What about separate contracts issued for rivalry between bounty-hunters? Both these seems to be avoided with the 1 Contract: 1 Bounty-Hunter at a time system in the blog.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How will the game decide where that bounty hunter ends? Is your agent an extension of you? In a way he is, and in a way he is not.
It would not make sense to me to forbid a single player in a team-oriented game from sharing with his team.
Soloing is a precarious way of operating in a PvP-possible environment. It is unlikely that the bounty hunter system will be designed for soloists.
...
Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the whole evil settlements being weaker. I really see that as Chaotic Evil settlements that everyone hates and the only people that go their are mass murderers who no one likes being weaker. I didn't see anything about LE settlements.Interestingly this touches on some arguments found in philosophy from such people as Thomas Hobbes and David Hume and others who wrote about the social contract individuals agree to when they continue to live within a social environment.
Part of what makes a Lawful stettlement work better/more efficiently is that the members of that society give up a significant portion of their volition, empowering the makers of laws to focus and coordinate the work being done. In a way the citizens of lawful settlements are in some ways weaker than the citizens of chaotic settlements.
Chaotic settlements are less efficient and productive exactly because their citizens do not give up their volition and are less bound by the rules implemented by the makers of law in their community.
So I should expect the settlements and benefits of Lawful societies to be more powerful and their citizens to be less powerful respectively than those of chaotic settlements.
How exactly that is to be expressed in the game certainly remains to be seen.
Ah, I see your point more clearly now.
Yes, I agree, Lawful (both for Good and for Evil) settlements and/or Kingdoms should function more efficiently.
Chaotic should have some effect to show that being Chaotic comes at a cost in Settlements, but it also comes with rewards. And that is what I would like to see taken into account.
Maybe specific structures for Chaotics of both Good and Evil.
A balance to offset the cost a bit.
Chaos is not the only thing being bred, it is also liberating.
A force of renewal after the consumption of the old.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How will the game decide where that bounty hunter ends? Is your agent an extension of you? In a way he is, and in a way he is not.
It would not make sense to me to forbid a single player in a team-oriented game from sharing with his team.
Soloing is a precarious way of operating in a PvP-possible environment. It is unlikely that the bounty hunter system will be designed for soloists.
I see, I think it limits the actual kill/damage as much as possible to the assigned bounty-hunter who is the one to give the coupe de grace. The others as they are not bounty-contracted therefore are mostly for support/protection if part of a bounty-team and it's simply easier to share the bounty collected as each bounty-hunter + team of helpers sees fit, afterwards?
I guess 1 bounty: 1 bounty-hunter means that the helpers have to be attacked by the supporters of the target to flag them or even the target - so there could be a delicate dance of sorts and it limits the bounty-hunter who takes the contract being instrumental as opposed to "most profitable method = bounty-hunters who grap a contract and share with all their mates so "50" BH's >> anything smaller and non-cooperating?
Maybe it is best as the blog describes it...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, so it's Care Bear PvP. Weak Devs, very weak.
You claim to want meaningful PvP and your vision of that is to hinder players to such an extent that they will become CE in no time and thus have vast disadvantages compared to players of the Good and Neutral alignment who will probably make up the bulk of the server (maybe even because of your game-mechanics).
Disappointing to say the least.
It has been very clear from the start that this will not be a "red is dead" game. People who want to run in circles and grind pvp gear have had TEN FRIGGIN YEARS worth of games catering to them.
This is a game for people who want PvP to be much less common and much more dramatic/meaningful when it does happen. We do exist, and we deserve a friggin game.
Nor am I advocating a "red is dead" game. What I would like to see though is viability for all alignments.
I do not think fairness is too much to ask.
But like Being so eloquently said, we will have to wait and see, it is too early for judgements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is alreday available to Chaotic and Evil players. They are free to break the laws, kill players, and take their stuff. That is thier benefit. The conqunence for those actions is to have access to less favorable settlements than those who choose to have at lease a veneer of civility by keeping either evil, chaos, or reputation above a minimum level.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know this can result in discussion, but can I propose definitions and bonuses for these "downthrodden" alignments?
Chaos is all about freedom. It defies the laws and offers much more possibilities/tactics than Law.
Evil is all about personal gain at the expence of others. You will use fruits of work of other people and they will lost them. So you will gain much more resources.
If devs will implement these (or similar) bonuses into the machanic, it will help our greedy/lawless characters stick to their alignments :)
There WILL be PvP. Plenty of it. If the designers feel that not enough PvP is happening they WILL loosen restrictions to get the right balance. This game will err on the cautious side instead of the free for all side, but there WILL be PvP because the game's ENTIRE design revolves around it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nor am I advocating a "red is dead" game. What I would like to see though is viability for all alignments.
I do not think fairness is too much to ask.But like Being so eloquently said, we will have to wait and see, it is too early for judgements.
The designers are going to FORCE us to fight. If everybody is playing care bear I guarantee to you right now and here that Dancey and his sadistic cohorts at GW will starve us with very scarce resources. When everybody gets hungry enough, the fun begins.
This is alreday available to Chaotic and Evil players. They are free to break the laws, kill players, and take their stuff. That is thier benefit. The conqunence for those actions is to have access to less favorable settlements than those who choose to have at lease a veneer of civility by keeping either evil, chaos, or reputation above a minimum level.
That is not the whole truth. The ones "wronged" also have the ability to track the offending player, possibly. That is kind of a big extra in favor of the wronged. Plus they magically know their name and can place a bounty on them and all their friends. (Just going by what Ryan said)
That seems like a pretty good counter already.But to have whole settlements pay for the ability to kill another player, which anyone can do, seems excessive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is alreday available to Chaotic and Evil players. They are free to break the laws, kill players, and take their stuff. That is thier benefit. The conqunence for those actions is to have access to less favorable settlements than those who choose to have at lease a veneer of civility by keeping either evil, chaos, or reputation above a minimum level.
Yes but the world must also make sense, and there is no logical reason to a LE settlement not being able to progress as much as a LG one. Many oppressive governments in real world are there to prove that. The governors can be evil and still offer education, defense, training, food, health to the people just because they need them to support their government.
So I hope I missunderstood what they said about good settlements having better buildings than evil ones. Lawfull developping better than chaotic would make sense though. Neutral should not have restricitions IMO as well.
CE chars would still have some dificulties as they would not be very welcome in LE settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From Being Heinous, and the perils of playing evil:
In general, we're pretty sure that MMOs are a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior.
...
If it turns out that we were overly cynical about human behavior, and it does indeed result in a chilling effect on players willing to play down at the other end of the spectrums, we'll happily relax or remove some of these rules. But it seems like it'd be more agreeable to start strict and ease off than to try to patch in a bunch of new penalties later.
Devs, please keep this in mind.
I'm not going to go all Doom & Gloom, but I'm a little concerned as well about the 24-hour time limit on Bounties, and limited amount of time to renew. So, if a bandit gets a big score, they just lie low for a few days and never suffer any consequences. This doesn't seem right.
You slip toward evil whenever you kill someone while you have the Attacker flag...
I wanted to highlight this quote from the blog. There seems to be an impression that you always move towards Evil if you kill another character. That's not true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... there is no logical reason to a LE settlement not being able to progress as much as a LG one.
Yes, there is. In a Lawful Good society, the common-folk are free and prosperous, leading to innovation and a greater dedication to improving the entire community. In a Lawful Evil society, the common-folk are constantly in fear of upsetting their masters, so they follow orders exactly, even if they know the orders are counter-productive. At least, that's a plausible reason :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... there is no logical reason to a LE settlement not being able to progress as much as a LG one.Yes, there is. In a Lawful Good society, the common-folk are free and prosperous, leading to innovation and a greater dedication to improving the entire community. In a Lawful Evil society, the common-folk are constantly in fear of upsetting their masters, so they follow orders exactly, even if they know the orders are counter-productive. At least, that's a plausible reason :)
IMO a master who kills/punishes everybody who disagrees with him is a CE one not LE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some thoughts
- This explains how people slip down along each axis, clearly there must be some way to shift back up or eventualy everyone ends up Chaotic Evil with a Low Reputation. It's hard to evaluate the proposed mechanics without knowing that part of the equation as well.
- It's unclear but will players gain the "Attacker" flag even if attacking "Criminals" or tresspassers in thier own territory? I would suggest that would create a problem for the territorial control and player law enforcement aspects of the game. If not, then all is good. I do think you'll need to go into the war and territorial conflict, control, claiming aspects of the game in order to understand how they interelate with the above mechanics.
- @All, Stephen has mentioned in another thread that they are purposefully disincentivizing "Evil" and "Chaotic" alignments with mechanical penalties because they predict they will have a very large player population imbalance toward those alignments otherwise. I don't believe this prediction will turn out to be accurate but as long as they are willing to adjust mechanics in light of empirical evidence, and they have indicated they will, then I think the design principle is sound. If they get the game running and see that 95 percent of the player population is choosing "Good" and only 5 percent "Evil" then they should, very quickly adjust. The only thing I would caution the designers is to be able to be nimble in these adjustments. If there is not much conflict because the sides are lopsided and not much PvE intialy because that takes quite a bit of resources to build...then the players are going to be sitting around initialy with very little to do and the game is going to get a reputation as "boring"...nothing kills a game more quickly then being labeled as "boring" before it can even really get off the launch pad. GW is going to need to have contingency plans to make sure there is enough interesting stuff for players to do and experience early on while they tweak thier systems to get the right level of PvP conflict.
YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not going to go all Doom & Gloom, but I'm a little concerned as well about the 24-hour time limit on Bounties, and limited amount of time to renew. So, if a bandit gets a big score, they just lie low for a few days and never suffer any consequences. This doesn't seem right.
Not going to get into specifics about mechanics cuz we really aren't quite there yet. But I think the design concept for Bandits should be exactly that: wait for the big score and then lie low for a couple days (cuz that's what successful bandits actually do).
The Bounty system is for the well played bandits. The death curse ios clearly to prevent serial player killers/griefers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, I will agree we might not have all the information. And the devs might be able to shed some light on the evil/chaotic side.
However, I also have a lot of MMO experience. I have given the benefit of the doubt to quite a few developers only to be vastly disappointed by making the assumption problems would be fixed or that the devs would know whats best. They are people too, and while they might know how to make a game, they arent gods, they arent perfect. Citicism is impotant, and the devs should be listening, especially since this is supposed to be crowdforged.
Even if I have come out as a bit agressive on this topic, I still think I have stated my concerns and solutions fairly well. But here is a quick and very basic look at the problems I see, without getting too much into it.
1. Some of the proposed systems seem to implicate a potential unballance of power.
2. The system seems to go overboard on the punishment of evil for the sake of anti-griefing.
3. The Bounty system that should make killing the killers sanctioned, actually punishes the Bounty Hunters. This makes no sense to me.
4. I dont think my personal reputation or that of my company should be tied into contratcs. I shoud be able to have a "good" record of contract completion and be a murderer. So the two should be treated seperately in my opinion. I want to be a bad guy, but a reliable one.
5. The biggest potential problem for me is anything that limits me or my settlements progression. This is an MMO, at the very least I should have access to maximum training (not including things like paladin or cleric, those I understand). But if I want to accel at being a ranger type, I better be able to max out my taining and not have it capped to 70% just because im a bad guy. Same goes with crafting, gathering, or building.Now maybe it could be harder or take longer (though Im not in love with the idea), but not just a complete restriction.
Numbers 1-4 I think can be tweaked, and Im hoping as the game develops more compromise can be met to make the systems more acceptable.
Number 5 is a straight up deal breaker. I have no room to compromise here. If I buy training I better damn well be able to train something (noted exceptions for things like cleric or paladin as those deal with dieties). This is not a threat its just the truth. Why would I play a game that wont let me "be all I can be"? I wouldnt. I'd move on to some other game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All this to try to stop griefing. FAIL! There will always be griefing.
The best way to handle griefing cases is to use this simple model.
Every character has there actions recorded for the last, let say, 15 minutes, in a rotating buffer. The would be an option on a menu, somewhere, to "Report Griefing". When this is used, the server then creates an Griefing Event, where the character action recording buffer is copied over to another database outside the game. Now the game moderators can replay the event and see if there is something worthy to deal with. Also when selecting a Griefing Event to view, it will pull some statistics from the database, such as links to the previous 5 to 10 events of both the reporter and the alleged griefer, frequency of reporting by player, and frequency for griefer, plus a bunch more statistics. Here the game moderators can see if there is a pattern or not, when griefing reports started for both reporter and griefer in relation to their account start dates. Make decisions, and for each decision taken a note is recorded for player account, linking to Griefing Event that resulted in the note being made.
The bounty system, I see as a role playing PvP tool, not an anti-griefing system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A little disappointed at how difficult playing Evil will be.
I will trust that the 'risk vs. reward' concept will play into this, as it does in everything else.
What rewards will an Evil player have for the risk he is taking?
Risk v rewards is exactly the crux of the game. People seem to be forgetting that all the valuable stuff is in the lawless zone and assuming that you can get that stuff without fighting for it.
The deterrent to everyone being LG is that it will be difficult to get the resources playing LG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
IMO a master who kills/punishes everybody who disagrees with him is a CE one not LE.
You would call Darth Vader CE instead of LE?
- (pedantic) I believe you meant "axis" not "axes" unless "lowering of axes" was an intentional pun ;)
Depending on whom you're addressing, "axes" is the proper plural of "axis".
It's unclear but will players gain the "Attacker" flag even if attacking "Criminals" or tresspassers in thier own territory?
If your target has any Flags, you do not get any Flags.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not think all alignments should be "equal". Nor do I think all player behavior should be tolerated, nor do I think any character concept should be accommodated.
It is in working within limits that we find Beauty and Truth.
Limits indeed.
I will take up your challenge and see if Beauty and Truth can indeed be found.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A little disappointed at how difficult playing Evil will be.
I will trust that the 'risk vs. reward' concept will play into this, as it does in everything else.
What rewards will an Evil player have for the risk he is taking?Risk v rewards is exactly the crux of the game. People seem to be forgetting that all the valuable stuff is in the lawless zone and assuming that you can get that stuff without fighting for it.
The deterrent to everyone being LG is that it will be difficult to get the resources playing LG.
Those things are not inter connected. A good character can benefit from all each zone has to offer, they are not restricted in any way.
On the contrary, any Evil character will have to remain in the lawless zones (with a few exceptions, like evil settlements) or be constantly hounded. The reward will have to be compensory to that, not something that everyone else gets anyway.The only thing I see this doing is making people who want an evil character start at LG, so they have a ton of leeway while they build their power for when folks start coming after them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not think all alignments should be "equal". Nor do I think all player behavior should be tolerated, nor do I think any character concept should be accommodated.
It is in working within limits that we find Beauty and Truth.
Seems a very theme park way of thinking. Why encourage people to only build one kind of castle in your sandbox?
I'll wait and see the final outcome here, but this is disappointing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not think all alignments should be "equal". Nor do I think all player behavior should be tolerated, nor do I think any character concept should be accommodated.
It is in working within limits that we find Beauty and Truth.
Ryan, would you care to retract or refine those first 2 sentences? The absolute finallity of them disturbs me and does not seem in the spirit of crowdforging.
I can at least agree with this part: "Nor do I think all player behavior should be tolerated"
The other parts are worrisome. Maybe you didnt mean it that way? Maybe I misuderstood? Maybe you could clarify?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Those things are not inter connected. A good character can benefit from all each zone has to offer, they are not restricted in any way.
On the contrary, any Evil character will have to remain in the lawless zones (with a few exceptions, like evil settlements) or be constantly hounded. The reward will have to be compensory to that, not something that everyone else gets anyway.The only thing I see this doing is making people who want an evil character start at LG, so they have a ton of leeway while they build their power for when folks start coming after them.
The ability to attack anyone who found a resource node before you did is actually pretty nice in this game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon,
Yeah edited after I took a second look and saw that he was always using the plural case. I had initialy misread and thought he was using it in the singular. Hoisted by my own petard...teaches me about being pedantic.
@Greedalox,
I tend to share your concerns (and I intend to play a "LG" character. That said, thier stated design rationale matches up with the mechanics they put forward. I just tend to believe they are basing it on a flawed initial premise. As long as they have some contingency in place beforehand to deal with things if thier premise turns out to be wrong once the rubber meets the road, I think things will be ok.
Where Developers tend to get themselves in trouble is when they never consider the possibility that a premise could be wrong...usualy because they've never brought thier plans up outside thier own small group (group-think) and then when the rubber meets the road they get blind-sided because they haven't built thier systems with an eye towards needing to adjust that premise. In this case, GW has been remarkably open with thier plans...and has had enough feedback from folks like us throwing red flags and saying "watch out for this", that I'm pretty confident that they are going to build thier systems with an eye toward being able to adjust if empirical evidence prooves thier initial premise wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not think all alignments should be "equal". Nor do I think all player behavior should be tolerated, nor do I think any character concept should be accommodated.
It is in working within limits that we find Beauty and Truth.
Exactly. Stick with that and we have the potential for a great experience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A good character can benefit from all each zone has to offer, they are not restricted in any way.
Utterly false. Good characters are very much restricted from "harvesting harvesters".
If you're evil (have the Heinous flag), your attacker gets almost a free pass on killing you...
Being Evil doesn't mean you're walking around with a constant Heinous flag on you. The Heinous flag will be very short-lived.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being Evil doesn't mean you're walking around with a constant Heinous flag on you. The Heinous flag will be very short-lived.
Exactly. There is a reason why Evil blood rituals happen in hidden places. If you walk into the middle of a town square with a chained slave, slit her throat in a blood ritual to the old ones, and use the power of that ritual to convert her corpse into a banshee, then you SHOULD EXPECT TO HAVE EVERYONE TRY TO KILL YOU.
If you do that in private, wait a minute and then go to a public area (maybe clean off the blood stains from your cloak first), then you are just another citizen. If you do not get caught in the act, the Heinous flag will go away and you are just another player.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This blog is worse than bad. It's nearly deal breaker bad if it isn't changed. You turn chaotic evil and lose reputation for killing ANYONE? So if a paladin goes out and hunts down a murderer they lose points?
There needs to be a cut off. A "if you go below this reputation you can be killed without penalty." Or as stated before, you actually gain alignment and reputation.
Otherwise good, lawful, and high reputation become synonyms for pacifists. You don't lose reputation for killing evil NPCs, why would you lose it for killing evil players? Pacifism is only a nearly mandatory part of being lawful good when the meta-game distinction between NPC and Player is made? That makes a lot of in-character sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being Evil doesn't mean you're walking around with a constant Heinous flag on you. The Heinous flag will be very short-lived.Exactly. There is a reason why Evil blood rituals happen in hidden places. If you walk into the middle of a town square with a chained slave, slit her throat in a blood ritual to the old ones, and use the power of that ritual to convert her corpse into a banshee, then you SHOULD EXPECT TO HAVE EVERYONE TRY TO KILL YOU.
If you do that in private, wait a minute and then go to a public area (maybe clean off the blood stains from your cloak first), then you are just another citizen. If you do not get caught in the act, the Heinous flag will go away and you are just another player.
Disagree with you on everyone wanting to kill you. In evil settlement, you be applauded for your effort, and gain increased reputation for such show of power, and celebrating evil acts. Remember slavery is not a punishable crime in evil settlements, or illegal acts, and is seen as one's duty to uplift yourself in society and reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not think all alignments should be "equal". Nor do I think all player behavior should be tolerated, nor do I think any character concept should be accommodated.
It is in working within limits that we find Beauty and Truth.
I agree that constraints are good.
Will only Evil or Chaotic towns have places to train thievery, or assassination, or poison making?If thats true, then I feel its a fine balance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not think all alignments should be "equal". Nor do I think all player behavior should be tolerated, nor do I think any character concept should be accommodated.
It is in working within limits that we find Beauty and Truth.
Ryan, I do think the first statement is a bit problematic in a game that's focused on PvP where the sides in a conflict are likely to be broken up largely along alignment lines.
I think that's kind of like saying "You're team has to spot your opponents 15 points because you've chosen to wear red T-shirts".
I've played enough Eastern Front scenerios in historical wargames to know that inequal games can be interesting to play upon occasion but the difference is that those games usualy last a few hours, maybe a day or 2 worth of play time.... not something you have to live with for months or years on end as your major gaming experience. No player is going to find it fun to be at a perpetual disadvantage simply because of the side they've chosen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This blog is worse than bad. It's nearly deal breaker bad if it isn't changed. You turn chaotic evil and lose reputation for killing ANYONE? So if a paladin goes out and hunts down a murderer they lose points?
There needs to be a cut off. A "if you go below this reputation you can be killed without penalty." Or as stated before, you actually gain alignment and reputation.
Otherwise good, lawful, and high reputation become synonyms for pacifists. You don't lose reputation for killing evil NPCs, why would you lose it for killing evil players? Pacifism is only a nearly mandatory part of being lawful good when the meta-game distinction between NPC and Player is made? That makes a lot of in-character sense.
1. You don't lose anything for killing someone if you don't have the Attacker Flag. All the alingmnet/Reputation hits are applied for killing someone while you have the Attacker flag. Don't start the fight, but end it.
2. You don't loose Law-Chaos if you kill someone while you have the Attacker Flag if you are on a bounty. You will lose on the good-evil axis and reputation, but those are minimized if your target is evil and has low reputation. You should be able to see the targets reputation and/or alignment when you take a bounty. And we havent gone into anything on how you might gain alignment or rep. It whould be possible for a paladin to maintain a LG alignment while taking bounties on evil players.
3. It's more likely that a LG person may be a pacifist crafter than an evil one. But it certianly isn't a synonym for being a care-bear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not think all alignments should be "equal". Nor do I think all player behavior should be tolerated, nor do I think any character concept should be accommodated.
It is in working within limits that we find Beauty and Truth.
I think my contribution of $400 and future contributions of $15.00 per month, should be equal. My alignment should have no, not one bit, of impact on my access to skills or their training time. Nor should my skills be capped, because of alignment.
The beauty of a sandbox MMO is the freedom of choice they provide. You say you are trying to stop griefing, but these systems go far beyond just curtailing griefing. They are limiting legitimate styles of play and punishing those players with real money ( reduction of training efficiency costs in real time and real money).
This approach will have serious impact on any future Kickstarter you hoped to be successful in. The greatest appeal of PFO is the sandbox, and you comment above is the antithesis of what a sandbox is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You turn chaotic evil and lose reputation for killing ANYONE?
Made me re-read the blog to make sure I understood it.
You slip toward evil whenever you kill someone while you have the Attacker flag...
If you have the Attacker flag, when you kill a target you lose reputation....
... gaining the Attacker flag is not chaotic if you got it from attacking a bounty target...
That sure makes it sound like you'll get the Attacker Flag if you go for a Bounty.
Can one of the devs please clarify whether you're intentionally trying to rule out Bounty Hunting for Good characters?
It seems like a really bad idea to put the Attacker Flag on Bounty Hunters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It whould be possible for a paladin to maintain a LG alignment while taking bounties on evil players.
It's not enough to be able to "maintain" our LG status. Paladins will generally not want to engage in actions that are Evil - regardless of how little it moves their alignment, or how easily it is recovered.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This blog is worse than bad. It's nearly deal breaker bad if it isn't changed. You turn chaotic evil and lose reputation for killing ANYONE? So if a paladin goes out and hunts down a murderer they lose points?
There needs to be a cut off. A "if you go below this reputation you can be killed without penalty." Or as stated before, you actually gain alignment and reputation.
Otherwise good, lawful, and high reputation become synonyms for pacifists. You don't lose reputation for killing evil NPCs, why would you lose it for killing evil players? Pacifism is only a nearly mandatory part of being lawful good when the meta-game distinction between NPC and Player is made? That makes a lot of in-character sense.
You should really reread the blogs.
•Attacker: A player that attacks another player character that is not fair game gains the Attacker flag. [...] This flag is applied anywhere in the world, unless the target has one of these flags or is at war with your settlement.
•You slip toward chaotic whenever you gain the Attacker or Criminal flags, except when pursuing a bounty (see below). This is generally a flat amount of loss.
•You slip toward evil whenever you kill someone while you have the Attacker flag or gain the Heinous flag. For killing, you move less if the target was also evil (in other words, it's more evil to kill a good character).
•If you have the Attacker flag, when you kill a target you lose reputation proportional to the reputation of the target (it's less disreputable to murder targets that have low reputation). Additionally, the target might further choose to rebuke you (even if it didn't result in a kill), expending some of his or her reputation to lower yours.
If you have a reason to be justified in killing them, you don't gain the attacker flag. If you don't have the attacker flag, you don't slip Chaotic/Evil/Low Rep.